As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Saturday, November 09, 2013

The Pantheon of Conspiracy Theories

Robert Sapolsky opines on conspiracy theories in the pages of the Wall Street Journal in light of the upcoming anniversary of the JFK assassination. He makes a point that will come to no surprise to our regular readers, but it is nice to see it proven out in a study, that if you believe in one conspiracy theory that you are more likely to believe in many, even if they are mutually contradictory.

Recent research by Michael Wood and Karen Douglas of the University of Kent in the U.K. points to the distinguishing characteristics of this frame of mind. In a systematic analysis of online discussions of 9/11 conspiracy theories, they showed that critics of these theories (that is, supporters of the conventional account of 9/11) tend to cite evidence in support of their stance. Conspiracists, by contrast, devote more space to arguing against the conventional view and are far less interested in supporting the validity of their alternative explanations. Other recent work by Dr. Wood and his colleagues shows how this mode of thinking goes a step further: Conspiracy theorists can be so focused on rejecting all official versions of things that they come to embrace alternative explanations that are mutually contradictory. The study concerned conspiracy theories surrounding the 1997 death of Princess Diana and her boyfriend Dodi Fayed. The alternative "real" stories listed as options by the researchers included: Queen Elizabeth having Diana killed to prevent the mother of the future king from marrying an Arab, Diana's being killed by business enemies of the Fayed family, and the princess and Fayed faking their own deaths. Volunteers were asked to rate the likelihood of each story. Conspiracists in the group often endorsed scenarios that were mutually contradictory. Those who believed, for example, that Princess Diana was assassinated were significantly more likely than chance to believe that she is still alive. In other words, when contemplating any given scenario, the fervent conviction that we are constantly being deceived trumped their ability to assess the internal consistency of their own thinking.

65 Comments:

Conspiracy theorists can be so focused on rejecting all official versions of things that they come to embrace alternative explanations that are mutually contradictory.

Hmm, that sounds familiar.

"Lyin Ian, your crippled epistemology makes you think it's contradictory to believe that there were explosions recorded as the towers collapses, but that the explosives were also silent, which is why no explosions were heard. You girls live in a fantasy world."

Or....

"Skidmark, it's not contradictory to think that one should criticize the Bush administration for ignoring hundreds of warnings that bin Laden was about to attack the US, but that none of this matters because bin Laden didn't do it. The Bush administration planted the sometimes thermite/sometimes explosives in the towers. You girls live in a fantasy world."

With history it's all-too easy to make broad generalizations, until one digs into the facts. With the JFK assassination, this is so true. Learn all the facts in concentrated form with hyperlinks free with my JFKScope, and then see what generalizations you can make:

"In other words, when contemplating any given scenario, the fervent conviction that we are constantly being deceived trumped their ability to assess the internal consistency of their own thinking."

Yup.

9/11 Troof has been a constant evolution in stupid.

"There were no planes, oh wait, there were? Well in NYC, but a missile hit the Pentagon. Where'd AA77 go? It didn't exist. United 93's crash site was staged. The WTC was brought down by controlled demo. No explosions? It was thermite? No thermite? It was Nanothemite. No? Well what about WTC7? That was weird, right? Yah huh."

Or...

"9/11 was needed to justify a war in Iraq"

But no Iraqis took place in the attacks.

"That's the genius of this false flag attack. With no Iraqis it pretty much means anyone was behind it. So Bush/Hitler was able to link Saddam Hussein to the attacks even though he never said Iraq had anything to do with the attack. Open your eyes!"

The WSJ article does not cite any papers by name when it makes claims about "recent research", nor does it present any direct quotes from the named experts. We are thus forced to rely on the author's characterizations of what the experts said, with no clear verification path.

The author defeats James B.'s point (that indulgence of apparent contradictions is necessarily pathological) in the concluding paragraph, the one that James B omitted, when the author invokes the scenario "Suppose the powers that be announce that X is the case. If someone says, 'I'm skeptical. It could be X+1, or it could be X–1 instead,' they may be on to something."

The discussion on these issues might be much improved if terms and distinctions were defined rigorously, such as the difference between a rational skeptic as described by Dr. Sapolsky above and a kneejerk conspiracy theorist. Screwloosechange's raison d'être seems to be to try to obscure the difference between those two things.

Lyin Ian, your quotes are invented. You may think that your lies are funny, but that doesn't change the fact that they are lies.

My, such squealing!

So Brian, was it thermite or explosives? Or do you actually believe that bin Laden did it? Your recent posts suggest you think bin Laden did it, and you're too much of a coward and liar to tell us what you really think.

MGF, your quotes are doubtless invented as well. I warned y'all years ago that your tolerance for Ian's lies was going to rot your minds.

My, such squealing!

Oh boy, Brian made a longer post at the end here. I'm going to have fun reading it, and then taunt and humiliate Brian in the next post. Drumroll.......

And seriously Snug, is it really so difficult to type in "Michael Wood and Karen Douglas" into Google and read the original paper? With savvy research skills like that you will blow the top off this conspiracy in no time.

The discussion on these issues might be much improved if terms and distinctions were defined rigorously, such as the difference between a rational skeptic as described by Dr. Sapolsky above and a kneejerk conspiracy theorist. Screwloosechange's raison d'être seems to be to try to obscure the difference between those two things.

A rational skeptic has facts and data on his side, and uses reason.

A knee-jerk conspiracy theorist has no data or reason, just innuendo and paranoia.

So, for example, I'm a rational skeptic when it comes to the Bible because I have (for example) facts about the age of the earth on my side.

You're a knee-jerk conspiracy theorist because you just babble endlessly about magic spray-on thermite and innuendo about widows. You're also mentally ill, have no job, live with your parents, and have a hideous haircut.

If someone says, 'I'm skeptical. It could be X+1, or it could be X–1 instead,' they may be on to something.

It becomes pathological when that person continues "...but it's definitely not X. It cannot possibly be X. It's obviously not X because they're telling us it is X." Even Resposible Truthers make this error.

The lying homosexual squeals, "...your libelous links copied from the website of the proven liar, bigot, and advocate of violence Kevin Barrett can not be taken seriously by anyone, and only discredit you."

See? You're a liar. You know as well as I do that Kevin Barrett copied the original text from the ScrewLooseChange comment section.

You lie first, last and always.

The lying homosexual lies, "...I have humiliated you so repeatedly and routinely in this forum that you can't talk about anything but me."

Project much, liar?

On the contrary, liar, I've humiliated you and debunked your lies on so many occasions that you obsessively return to SLC on a daily basis in a futile effort to repair your non-existent credibility.

GutterBall, no one has authenticated Barrett's text. Any representation you make as to its authenticity is strictly based on Barrett's claims, and you haven't even provided those. Barrett is a liar, a bigot, and an advocate of violence. He has no credibility whatsoever.

It's funny that a JFK spammer would show up because it is a great example of how quickly a conspiracy theory can fall apart yet go unnoticed by those who wallow in them.

The first mistake was running with a second gunman before proving that there was a second gunman. The theory raced out of control from that point obscuring the basic - and proven fact that all three shots came from the 6th Floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository. Oswald was the lone shooter, and his gun did the shooting.

The glaring red flag that the JFK CTs are crap is that they are inconsistent. In a real conspiracy or plot ALL OF THE EVIDENCE LEADS BACK TO A SINGLE GROUP OF PEOPLE. Every line goes to the guilty at some point, and no further. The true culprits depend on who's book you bought (and I bought a lot): The Mob, the CIA, the Mob & the CIA, Hunt Oil & the CIA, Cuba, Anti-Castro Cubans, accidental Secret Service weapons discharge, Claire Luce Booth, and they've even managed to work in the Bush family in the last few years.

Contrast this with Watergate, a classic conspiracy with many moving parts. None of the players have changed, no new bad guys have emerged, no alternate stories have come to light, and almost everyone involved - including Deep Throat - have written books about their part in the story. It has not changed.

In 12 years the fact surrounding the attacks of 9/11 have not changed. 19 Al Qaeda hijackers took over four commercial jets and crashed them into three of their four targets. These fact have never been in dispute by any intellectually honest person. There are a few details we have yet to learn, but they are trivial things that will only fill in the back stories and not change the big picture.

The lying liar lies, "Lyin Ian, your quotes are invented. You may think that your lies are funny, but that doesn't change the fact that they are lies."

Here's what Ian wrote:

"...Lyin Ian, your crippled epistemology makes you think it's contradictory to believe that there were explosions recorded as the towers collapses, but that the explosives were also silent, which is why no explosions were heard. You girls live in a fantasy world." -- Ian

What makes you think Watergate had many moving parts? 5 clowns bungled a burglary, the money led to CReP. Pretty simple stuff. The only complicating factor is that the case can be made that NIxon had showed himself to be too liberal (EPA, SALT, Family Assistance Plan, wage and price controls) for the 1%. So maybe the clowns got themselves arrested deliberately?

I never stalked Willie Rodriguez. The only time I ever laid eyes on him was at a public appearance wherein he was a blatant con artist, lying about his death-defying exploits on 9/11.

Ian's "paraphrase" introduces elements (such a crippled epistemology" that were not present in the original quote. It was not a legitimate paraphrase. Your defense of Ian's lies only further serves the doubts that you ever went to college at all. You clearly do not understand the conventions of simple scholarship.

" 5 clowns bungled a burglary, the money led to CReP. Pretty simple stuff. The only complicating factor is that the case can be made that NIxon had showed himself to be too liberal (EPA, SALT, Family Assistance Plan, wage and price controls) for the 1%. So maybe the clowns got themselves arrested deliberately?"

If you cannot grasp an actual, White House-based conspiracy then you have zero credibility when it comes to anything related to 9/11/2001.

The only complicating factor is that the case can be made that NIxon had showed himself to be too liberal (EPA, SALT, Family Assistance Plan, wage and price controls) for the 1%.

Oh good, Brian has invented another ridiculous conspiracy theory to babble about. This one is probably even too nuts for his fellow burnt-out dinosaurs who are lost in 1968, as they'll probably remember the not-exactly-left-wing dictators in Chile, Greece, and South Vietnam that Nixon was all too happy to assist.

Utterfail, I'm not a liar. You've proven nothing of the sort.

Brian, you're lying right here. You've proven yourself to be a pathetic, hopeless liar more times than anyone can count.

I never stalked Willie Rodriguez.

See what I mean? You're lying about the fact that you are a deranged sex stalker who is obsessed with the man.

Ian's "paraphrase" introduces elements (such a crippled epistemology" that were not present in the original quote. It was not a legitimate paraphrase. Your defense of Ian's lies only further serves the doubts that you ever went to college at all. You clearly do not understand the conventions of simple scholarship.

Thanks for proving my point. You're a deranged lunatic who constantly babbles about contradictory things with regard to 9/11, like how bin Laden is both guilty and not guilty, and how explosives were both used and not used, and both made explosive sounds and were silent.

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because he knows the truth movement is dead and he will never get a new investigation, the "widows" will never have their "questions" answered, and "meatball on a fork" will never appear in a journal of engineering.

In all fairness, I am sure Brian could get such an article published in a Bentham Publication as long as he titled it in a way such as, "Results of Dynamic Forces on Protein Based Spheroids Bound to Metallic Multi-Tine Instruments".

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because nobody cares about 9/11 truth anymore. He babbles endlessly about modified attack baboons, magic thermite elves, and invisible widows, and the only people who listen are those of us here who taunt and humiliate Brian for it.

Google: WTC building 7 for irrefutable proof the attack was an inside job. This website is pure state propaganda... nobody's gonna make a website for arguing the official story of 9/11... no ones that stupid and crazy.

Unless you're claiming that Creationism is dead, you've simply moved the goalposts.

Creationism is fantastically, idiotically wrong in every way, just like 9/11 truth. The fact that there are many creationists out there, unlike 9/11 truth (which has about 10 people who still believe in it), doesn't change the fact they're completely wrong.

The fact that creationism is still very much a force in society is why scientists spend a lot of time refuting it. 9/11 truth is dead, so nobody wastes their time refuting it. We don't even refute in these comments anymore. We just make fun of you for the fact that you're unemployed and have a hideous haircut.

Google: WTC building 7 for irrefutable proof the attack was an inside job. This website is pure state propaganda... nobody's gonna make a website for arguing the official story of 9/11... no ones that stupid and crazy.

Well, given your limited command of the English language, it's not surprising that you're dumb enough to think WTC 7 is some kind of smoking gun.

So what you're saying is that the perpetrators of 9/11 (presumably the Bush administration) didn't have the mandate for war from killing 3000 people, destroying two iconic skyscrapers, and crashing 4 airplanes. No, what was needed was to demolish a nondescript building that nobody had ever heard of hours after the fact with no additional deaths or injuries. Only then would Americans be clamoring for war.

Don't think too hard about this, it's probably more than your feeble mind can bear. Instead, just go make sure your customers don't get served burnt french fries.

I guess it never occurred to you that a reason to destroy WTC7 might be to disrupt SEC investigations of Bush's crooked Wall Street cronies?

Not to mention the CIA station.

Did you hear about how Steve Cohen was going to use HAARP to create a major hurricane that would travel up the Potomac River and flood both the CIA headquarters and the SEC headquarters, rendering their investigations into his Hedge Fund useless.

And, dammit, wouldn't you know, he set the coordinates for longitude to "East" instead of "West" and create Typhoon Haiyan instead. So he's been fined a billion dollars and there are ten thousand dead in the Philippines. Shit happens, I guess.

Let's also remember that Brian has yet to present any evidence that Laurie Van Auken's husband is dead. When I presented credible evidence that he's living it up in Cabo with a new woman, Brian just squealed and cried.

Ian wrote, "Brian hasn't considered the possibility of HAARP being used to create Typoon Haiyan. That's typical. Since Brian was banned from the truth movement, he wouldn't know what real truthers believe."